CrunchJunkie

get_site_audit_issue

Read-only

One issue of a client's SEO audit crawl: what it is, why it matters and how to fix it (in the user's language), its evidence basis and source, its priority and the value on the affected pages, the affected URLs (sorted by priority and Google clicks; capped, with the true total; paged with offset) with each page's finding detail, the site-wide detail for a site-wide issue, mutes with their reasons, and fixContext: the facts and rules the in-app "Draft the fix with Crunch" uses, so the assistant drafts the exact fix itself (no AI is spent by this tool).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "clientId": "<clientId>",
      "issueId": "<issueId>"
    },
    "name": "get_site_audit_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Affected pages returned, default 25.
`offset`	No	Skip this many affected pages (paging).
`crawlId`	No	A finished crawl. Default: the latest that ran to the end.
`issueId`	Yes	Issue id (from list_site_audit_issues).
`clientId`	Yes	Client id (from list_clients).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: affected URLs are sorted by priority and Google clicks, capped with a true total, paged with offset, and the tool explicitly spends no AI while returning fixContext for drafting. Permission requirements and error behavior remain unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The resource is front-loaded, but the description is one very long run-on sentence packed with comma-separated payload details. It is informative yet difficult to scan, and some clauses could be split or grouped more cleanly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so comprehensively: issue explanation and fix guidance, evidence, priority, affected URLs and per-page detail, site-wide detail, mutes, and fixContext. It could still mention permission requirements or the exact pagination metadata returned, but the core completeness is strong.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description still adds interpretive value by explaining that affected URLs are sorted, capped with a true total, and paged with offset, which clarifies how limit and offset behave in the returned dataset.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Begins with a specific resource, 'One issue of a client's SEO audit crawl', and enumerates the issue-detail payload, which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings. It does not explicitly name list_site_audit_issues in prose, leaving part of the sibling distinction to the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'One issue' and by the issueId schema note pointing to list_site_audit_issues, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_site_audit, get_site_audit_page, or list_site_audit_issues. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All CrunchJunkie tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?